What self-serving nonsense

"Was President Bush imposing his "faith belief" on the American people when he committed all those billions to fighting AIDS in Africa?"

This is a poor example. First, as Dragyn has pointed out there are plenty of non-religious reasons that can be brought forward for fighting AIDS in Africa. Second, it is not clear that Bush's decision was religiously motivated. Third, many of the strings tied to those billions of dollars, such as abstinence only education, demonstrate that, while in this case he is not imposing his religious convictions directly on the American people, he is imposing them on the African people.

"Funny how the left has no problem invoking religion when it comes to issues in which Christian teachings suit their policy goals. I've got no problem with that in principle, but spare me..."

I guess it does seem funny, in that these invocations occur with much less frequency and bombast from the "left" than it does from the "right", specifically the WASPy right. Franklin Graham, Pat "Assassinate Chavez" Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson, for example.

But I agree, Rod, it is rather odd to see the "left" invoking religion. We can hope that anyone invoking religion would do it little more thoughtfully than what we hear from religious leaders and politicians these days.

So, is President Bush not imposing his faith as long as policy decisions he makes that involve his moral and/or religious convictions coincide with what the left, secular or otherwise, would have him do? That's a rather convenient principle, yes?

So, is President Bush not imposing his faith as long as policy decisions he makes that involve his moral and/or religious convictions coincide with what the left, secular or otherwise, would have him do? That's a rather convenient principle, yes?

I don't think you're looking at the complete picture, Mr. Dreher, so maybe we should try to use another context. We often hear from political leaders that they are "personally opposed" to abortion - that is being guided by religious conviction. However, they do not feel that it is right to force women who do believe that it is their right to termintate a pregnancy to follow his religious beliefs. In other words, the candidate is saying that he realizes that there are people who do not follow his religion, and therefore, it is not his right to force them to conform to that religious belief, anymore than it is to force a Christian woman to wear a burqa, or to force a Hindu to go to McDonalds.

Maybe another topic. Same Sex Marriage. While a candidate can be personally opposed to gay marriage, the candidate can also realize that it is not his place to force a secular government to ban said marriages. If Same Sex Marriages become legal, and there are certain churches who do not wish to perform a Same Sex Union or Blessing, then it would also be wrong for someone who supports Same Sex Marriage to force that clergy man to perform that religious ceremony.

Let us now go back to the first example. Giving Aid to Africa based on one's religious convictions is fine. Generosity, loving kindness, and compassion are fine. However, President Bush tied to that funding limitation to what they could spend it on based on his personal religious convictions. If the African government wants to spend it on condoms, then that is their business, because it is their gift to have.

Rod's post has given examples of the behaviors and thinking that completely alienate me from current generation liberals. I'm grievously disappointed with todays conservatives, but at least they don't mouth mindless nonsense about imposing religious belief. Many of the answers here follow the same pattern, so clearly, there are liberals in the house! By the definition of imposing religious belief they have tried to establish, everybody is imposing their religious belief on everybody else. What clap trap.

I'm not sure if my post had an error, but I had the same problem that someone else had. I don't think that the post is offensive, so I'll just try to post it one more time to make sure.

So, is President Bush not imposing his faith as long as policy decisions he makes that involve his moral and/or religious convictions coincide with what the left, secular or otherwise, would have him do? That's a rather convenient principle, yes?

I don't think you're looking at the complete picture, Mr. Dreher, so maybe we should try to use another context. We often hear from political leaders that they are "personally opposed" to abortion - that is being guided by religious conviction. However, they do not feel that it is right to force women who do believe that it is their right to termintate a pregnancy to follow his religious beliefs. In other words, the candidate is saying that he realizes that there are people who do not follow his religion, and therefore, it is not his right to force them to conform to that religious belief, anymore than it is to force a Christian woman to wear a burqa, or to force a Hindu to go to McDonalds.

Maybe another topic. Same Sex Marriage. While a candidate can be personally opposed to gay marriage, the candidate can also realize that it is not his place to force a secular government to ban said marriages. If Same Sex Marriages become legal, and there are certain churches who do not wish to perform a Same Sex Union or Blessing, then it would also be wrong for someone who supports Same Sex Marriage to force that clergy man to perform that religious ceremony.

Let us now go back to the first example. Giving Aid to Africa based on one's religious convictions is fine. Generosity, loving kindness, and compassion are fine. However, President Bush tied to that funding limitation to what they could spend it on based on his personal religious convictions. If the African government wants to spend it on condoms, then that is their business, because it is their gift to have.

When Edwards imposes his religious views on people, via poverty programs for instance, no ones legal rights and civil liberties are in jeopardy. Arguably, they result in an expansion of liberty, not an infringement on it.

In contrast, when Bush imposes his religious views--on issues like abortion and gay rights--he does put the the liberty of citizens in jeopardy. A religious belief about homosexuality results in the denial of basic protections against discrimination in employment and housing, to more complex issues like hate crimes and ultimately gay marriage. In the case of gay marriage, religious views are literally standing in the way of legal rights.

That is a difference.

Daniel - But your real problem then is not with religious belief intersecting with the state, but particular policies that sometimes result from it (Bush's views on marriage and abortion). That is Rod's entire point.

There is nothing wrong with one's faith having an influence on their policy in theory. Edwards seemed to being implying that there is something wrong with that.

"Edwards' perspective--and mine--is that when Bush imposes his religious beliefs and turns it into policy, it results in the loss of liberty."

Yeah--except that Edwards's poverty programs are probably going to deprive taxpayers of their money. He's still taking something away from people by imposing his religious views regarding poverty on the rest of the nation.

Franco had half a brain, after all.

"... having Franco as our president sure wouldn't be a bad thing. . ."

You can't post stuff like this and expect anyone to take you seriously.

"Historians estimate that in the first five years of the Franco regime, some 200,000 Republicans were executed or died in prison."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947209-4,00.html

"During his rule, non-government trade unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum, from communist and anarchist organizations to liberal democrats and Catalan or Basque separatists, were either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means including violent police repression."

"All cultural activities were subject to censorship, and many were plainly forbidden on various, often spurious, grounds. This cultural policy relaxed with time, most notably in the early 1970s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco#After_the_war

"look what happened to that country after the Socialists took over."

What are you talking about here, exactly? When the socialists took over 200,000 people weren't executed for their political beliefs, political and cultural groups were not violently suppressed and speech remained free.

Are you truly arguing that some Franco like figure, who jailed and executed his political enemies, violently suppressed any political or cultural organizations that objected and tried to control all speech - should run the United States?

Dude, that's just nuts.

No "sparing", Rod. You haven't earned it.

"If Edwards reaches out to help the poor because of a sense, grounded in his religious faith, that that's what folks out [sic] to do, is he not imposing his "faith belief" on the American people?"

Whether or not Mr. Edwards "helps the poor", that is based on his own personal conscience, possibly, but by no means guaranteed to have been "grounded in his religious faith". He may just think it's the right thing to do.

TELLING others they MUST "help the poor" would be imposing his beliefs - religious or otherwise - on the American people.

"Was President Bush imposing his "faith belief" on the American people when he committed all those billions to fighting AIDS in Africa?"

Wrong analogy. Mr. Bush most DEFINITELY would impose HIS religious beliefs on ALL Americans by changing the Constitution to kick gay people out of its alleged guarantees of equal treatment before the law. His famous quote was "It's my job to 'protect' the sanctity of marriage". As if rights ought to be doled out based on the 'sanctifiability' o fone's relationships!

"This is such cheap rhetoric.'

You would know about "cheap rhetoric", Rod. "Lavender jackboots" anyone?

"Edwards doesn't share Bush's conservative Evangelicalism"

Thank God for THAT, I say.

"but don't tell me that if he were president, he wouldn't be guided by the moral principles taught to him by his understanding of religious faith."

Being "guided" by moral principles is one thing; imposing "religious beliefs" on all of America is entirely another. I don't think Mr. Edwards WOULD impose his religious beliefs on Americans. He has said as much. You just don't happen to agree with him on this subject.

"What am I not getting?"

A lot, Rod. A lot!

"This idea that for an elected leader reach a public policy decision via a route that goes through church (or mosque, or synagogue) amounts to "imposing" one's beliefs on the people who elected the leader is rather flimsy."

No it isn't. The particular 'gay issue' at hand is same-sex marriage. If a politician decides, say, that his/her religion ALLOWS for it, that does NOT make it mandatory for ALL Americans. Currently (and under Bush's attempts to kick gay Americans out of the Constitutional "guarantee" of equal protections before the law), same-sex marriage is FORBIDDEN. That IS imposing (Bush's) religious tenets on ALL people, whether or not we agre with them or are of the same 9or NO) religion.

Is THAT clearer?

"If a secularist Democratic politician advocated legislation doing something that offended a certain segment of the religious community, would that politician stand accused of "imposing" her secularity on the American people?"

No. That would only be the case if it were REQUIRED of all people.

ALLOW vs. REQUIRE (or, more accurately, FORBID)

I can see the difference. Sorry that you can't.

Per the unnamed he-she attacking my favorable view of Franco, the man:
"PER CNN/TIME Historians estimate that in the first five years of the Franco regime, some 200,000 Republicans were executed or died in prison."

Why people continue to defend the filthy, sub-human system of murder, torture, lies and fear known as Communism, and why they continue to vilify the man who defeated it in his successful effort to save Spain, boggles the mind. During the Spanish Civil War, the humorously named "Republicans" were comprised of a coalition of Communists, Socialists and Anarchists. The Nationalist forces under Franco were comprised of Monarchists, traditionalist, Fascists and Catholics.

"One of the Nationalists' principal claimed motives was to confront the anti-clericalism of the Republican regime and to defend the Roman Catholic Church, which had been the target of attacks... Even before the war religious buildings were burnt without action on the part of the Republican authorities to prevent it. As part of the social revolution taking place, [other churches] were turned into Houses of the People. Similarly, many of the massacres perpetrated by the Republican side targeted the Catholic clergy. Franco's religious Moroccan Muslim troops found this repulsive and for the most part fought loyally and often ferociously for the Nationalists...[but over] 6000 clergy and religious were killed." WikipediA

Get that, Mz/Mr he-she, even the Muslims couldn't stand for the Communist slaughter of Catholic priests and nuns!

Furthermore, Mz/Mr he-she, you didn't post the complete thought:
"PER CNN/TIME Historians estimate that in the first five years of the Franco regime, some 200,000 Republicans were executed or died in prison. But Spain has changed a great deal since the 1930s. Although it remains very much a dictatorship, what now keeps most Spaniards loyal to the regime is not repression but prosperity. Since 1960, the country has had "only" 13 executions, including the latest five. While that record scarcely qualifies the Franco regime as a pioneer in civil liberties, the situation is far worse in Communist dictatorships, where political dissidents are frequently committed to a living death in secret police-run "mental hospitals" with much less outraged notice in the West (see box page 37). Franco remains a very special bete noire to most of Europe's leaders and to the leftist elite. Some of them, like the British union boss Jack Jones and Italy's Socialist leader Pietro Nenni, fought for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. Others were students in that era and grew up on a steady diet of real or imagined Franco atrocities...[In Europe, the object]...is to get Franco. The romantic memories of the International [Communist] Brigades and the frustrations of four decades have finally coalesced in one hate-object that binds together Western Europe's Communists, Socialists, students, Cabinet ministers...
[get Franco]." Gosh, I guess you forgot to mention that part of your own reference.

But you did mention atrocities which "historians estimated" after the war. You didn't say whether or not Franco was able to stop them, however, and you didn't mention atrocities during the war. Here are some on the part of the left:

"Atrocities were committed on both sides during the war. The use of terror against civilians foreshadowed World War II. Atrocities on the Republican side were committed by government agencies, ruling parties and groups of radical leftists (mainly anarchists) against the alleged rebel supporters, including the nobility, former landowners, rich farmers, industrialists, non-socialist workers and the Church. Other repressive actions in the Republican side were committed by specific factions such as the Stalinist NKVD (the Soviet secret police). Note that these crimes committed by the NKVD were carried out not only against the Nationalists but also against all those who did not share their ideology, even if they were fighting on the Republican side...

"Atrocities by the Left during what has been termed Spain's red terror took a great toll on the Catholic faithful, especially clerics, as churches, convents and monasteries were desecrated, pillaged and burned, 13 bishops, 4184 diocesan priests, 2365 male religious (among them 114 Jesuits) and 283 nuns were murdered, and there are accounts of Catholic faithful being forced to swallow rosary beads, thrown down mine shafts and priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive." WikipediA.

You and your comrades never stop trying to cover up the reason Franco was fighting. Do you think we will forget? I'll take Franco over any of the present-day Democratic seekers of the White House. The world is paying dearly for flirting with Socialism in all its forms; we don't want any more of it here. Not even its medicine, thank you all the same.